Profile of a 'deadly tank killer'

[SilsoeSid]

A interesting article from the BBC.

Profile of a 'deadly tank killer'
-----------
"Since its launch in the early 1970s the Lynx has suffered from a number of problems........

1989: Kenya crash kills nine crew from the Royal Navy
1998: Three servicemen killed during air tests in Bosnia
1999: Leicestershire crash kills three crew
2001: Two crew escape after crashing into the Arabian Sea
2002: Two perish when Lynx comes down off coast of US
2004: Navy crash in Antarctica seriously injures three people

.......Lynx makers Westland won a contract in 2002 worth more than £20m to develop the Future Lynx which incorporates an improved airframe, new engines and a modern avionics suite. "
---------------

Improvements to none of the areas mentioned in previous crashes!!

Funnily, when asked on the BBC news at 5 whether there were any servicability issues with the Lynx, the reporter live at the MoD diverted the question. Press packs already out then!

edit....Disgusted to note that the BBC coverage puts the crash in the news at 14 minutes, as a last article. No comments on the eye witness remarks either. Keep to sky!

[Si Clik]

This article is a heap of b$%$*%ks.

I'll Illustrate:

1989 crash - human error
1998 crash - human error
1999 crash - tech
2001 crash - ship error
2002 crash - tech
2004 crash - not tech

This article has of course missed some other issues and as an illustration of press ignorance is excellent.

[SilsoeSid]

Thanks for that Si, do you have any links for the Investigation reports?

Human error seems to be a big catch all phrase. Were there ergodynamic faults, SOP issues or was negligence a factor?

What are 'ship error and 'not tech error'?

I guess thats why the BLUH is going to be a Westland Lynx, because there isn't actually anything wrong with the aircraft itself.

In your opinion, does the training model need to be altered to prevent future basic mistakes?

Of course the BBC list wasn't comprehensive and I'm sure you'll be able to give us a rundown on past Lynx crashes/failures.

Please illustrate us some more!

SS

[helidriver]

Si Clik,

Just for the record the Bosnia crash in 1998 was not aircrew error as you report. It was in fact technical. Westlands' manufacturing process of the tail rotor drive shaft was poorly controlled allowing swarf to be placed in between shaft and connecting joint during the bonding process. The crash was descibed "not survivable" in the accident report. When the tail rotor failed the crew even managed to retard the ECU's before impact !

As one of those who carried the pilots coffin I suggest you research your arguments better.

[SilsoeSid]

It's not just the BBC, the Scotsman is in on it aswell.

The Lynx has a history of engine and rotor problems since it came into service as the Army’s primary battlefield utility helicopter in the 1970s, with at least 15 servicemen killed in accidents caused by malfunctions over the past 15 years.

However, there are so far no indications that mechanical failure was to blame in this crash.

mmmm...."caused by malfunctions"

edit ......Whatever we hear on the news or read in the papers as to the cause, let the BoI do their work. As everyone keeps telling me, don't believe all you hear or see.

Nice to see the BBC 10 o clock news didn\'t even mention the crash in the headlines, it\'s more important to know Tim Henman reached the quarter finals of something.

[dmanton300]

guess thats why the BLUH is going to be a Westland Lynx, because there isn't actually anything wrong with the aircraft itself.

Two letters, one hyphen and three numbers.

AB-139. Watch this space!

Note:- I know nothing, I live just outside the main gate to WHL, and the buzz is that Future Lynx is more or less dead, and people were more than a little impressed with the AB-139 when it visited just before Farnborough.

[X-QUORK]

The list at the start of the thread has omitted the tie-bar failure in '94 which killed Andy Beck and Les Beresford over in Germany. Sadly, this latest incident has occured almost exactly 10 years later and is a reminder of many others lost during peacetime training. A few of us will be going to pay our respects to the above mentioned next week - this latest incident brings it all back into very sharp focus.

Just wanted to not let that one be forgotten, but it's not a dig against the Lynx as I'm not qualified to pass judgement.

[SilsoeSid]

Ok Si, bit of a lag here,
-----------
According to you;

1989 crash - human error
1998 crash - human error
1999 crash - tech
2001 crash - ship error
2002 crash - tech
2004 crash - not tech
---------------

If I may "illustrate" a bit more for Si;

1989 - Kenya - Door came off, hit tail rotor.
1998 - read helidrivers post.
1999 - Leicestershire - catastrophic engine failure
2001 - Oman - report not seen - brief details
2002 - W.Atlantic - report not seen. brief details
2004 - Antartica - report not seen. brief details

A couple more for Si to think about, straight from the top of my head, not including anything outside the UK.

Rotor head groundings
TR Drive shafts
Tail rotor/hyd Leeming
Tail rotor Stafford
Tail rotor Germany

And these, fortunately didn't add to the toll!

There's more out there to see Si, but I think you have been below the 'gunnels' a bit too long.

[Si Clik]

Ok,

I'll take it on the chin over the 1998 one, confused with dates I think?

Personally I'm no fan of Lynx with regard to mechanics and was only making the point that the initial BBC report was arse.

Sorry, if anyone upset etc.

On the AB-139 note I think the whole BLUH think is being captured in time and money by SABR. Who knows whats next?

[Eight Eights Blue]

Si Clik,

No such thing as human error anymore after Mull of Kintyre accident so refrain yourself. Could be quite damning using words like that.

Silso,

They did mention it on BBC 10 news, very brief though, seen it on there. Are your inits TT by any chance. If so drop me a line and I will ID myself.

[Black 'n Yellar]

The Lynx may have had its problems over the years, but it is still one of the best aircraft I have ever flown. The speed and manoeuverability were great, and having flown it in most theatres from sand to snow, I never had any complaints. If you worked out how many accidents it has had per flying hour I think the statistics would be a bit more valid. Not having flown one for a few years, I definitely miss the old workhorse.

[VP959]

Black'n Yellar, as someone who spent some time getting Lynx into service back in the mid 70's (albeit the blue one......) I wholeheartedly agree. Let's not forget that it remains one of the most agile and versatile helicopters available. That very agility lends itself to effective operation at low level, with the inevitable and extremely unfortunate consequence that accidents are more likely.

Silsoe Sid seems to just enjoy creating controversial knocking copy, to the point that I often wonder whose side he's on. I thought for a while that he might be involved in some way with the Lynx community, but if that were the case he wouldn't be so ill-informed about Future Lynx (the design team for which visited every unit to garner information on improvements to be incorporated in the new aircraft, as they all happen to be very committed to learning from experience).

[Pilgrim101]

VP

700, 702 Sqn or D Sqn at Boscombe Down ? You wouldn't know an old South African mate of mine who was 'responsible' for finding all the best wines in the Aix en Provence area, and coincidentally flying an XX DB Lynx and XZ227 (?) around Marignane and Frejus ?

Brilliant aircraft apart from the 22R knocking your fillings out in those days ! Sad statistics, but that's what they are for Military flying I guess. As always, lost friends.

Oh and do you remember one flying around with a chunk off a drive pinion rattling around the MRGB conformal gear over the Bristol channel ? (Nick de Hartog ?) safely landed.

[SilsoeSid]

VP959,

I'm sorry, I don't quite get your dig. If you look back, you'll find I said "I guess thats why the BLUH is going to be a Westland Lynx".

May I direct you to the Westland Helicopter Press Release page here where it says, under the topic "UK MoD APPROVES FUTURE LYNX FUNDING" ;

The Ministry of Defence has announced that it has given the go-ahead to the Assessment Phase for the UK's Battlefield Light Utility Helicopter (BLUH) requirement. AgustaWestland's Future Lynx has been selected on a single tender basis for this Assessment Phase.....
.....The Future Lynx design is a development of the existing Lynx helicopter

Or even go here where the MoD say, "WESTLAND WIN CONTRACT TO PROVE FUTURE LYNX IS RIGHT".

An MOD study has shown that the Future Lynx has the best potential to meet the Army's requirement to replace its current battlefield Lynx.

And finally to here where the MoD quite clearly state,

The Lynx Helicopter will also be phased out as the Apache AH Mk 1 will replace it in its attack helicopter role. Ultimately, however, the Lynx will be replaced by the BLUH (which is Lynx based).

These people may have visited units, but if it was anything along the lines of the briefing I attended, they listened to no-one. I haven't flown Lynx for a couple of years now, so please tell me what type of aircraft you think the BLUH is going to be.

Whose side am I on?............put it this way, I don't want to lose any more friends in Lynx crashes.

[VP959]

Silsoe Sid wrote: "These people may have visited units, but if it was anything along the lines of the briefing I attended, they listened to no-one."

VP replies:

A trifle harsh and completely untrue as it happens. Every single point collected from units was recorded and collated and the vast majority have been incorporated into Future Lynx.

By briefings I take it you mean the annual Lynx Roadshows. Although these always give an update on project progress (along with the current state of play on the in-service Lynx variants) they are not the means by which most of this hard data was obtained. Specialist teams went around about two years ago now, at the start of the BLUH/SCMR Assessment Phase, to gather what amounted to a "wish list" from current operators and maintainers.

I can assure you I listen to each and every user, of whatever rank, very carefully indeed, BTW. As you may be able to guess, I know far more about the BLUH/SCMR programme than is given in the links you posted...............

[SilsoeSid]

As you may be able to guess, I know far more about the BLUH/SCMR programme than is given in the links you posted...............

Of that I have no doubt, then you'll also know that the main criteria for the BLUH was that due to deployment reasons, it had to fit into a C-130J.

No mention of the intention for the RAF to get their hands on some C-17s strangely enough.

As to the rest of the last post, what didn't everyone in these Specialist teams hear in the sentence;

"We would like an aircraft similar to the BlackHawk, called the BlackHawk?"

As VP tells us he knows more than both the MoD and WHL, please enlighten us as to why the Lynx replacement was chosen to be a ....uuuuumm.....Lynx?

[VP959]

SS wrote: "........the main criteria for the BLUH was that due to deployment reasons, it had to fit into a C-130J."

VP says: That was one criteria, but not the main one as it happens.

SS continued: "We would like an aircraft similar to the BlackHawk, called the BlackHawk?"

VP ends with:

So how come your capability requirements people didn't specify that they wanted a Blackhawk then? Future Lynx was originally selected because it met the requirements specified by you guys in the first place, plus it was cheaper, performed just as well and was a lower risk buy than the other 5 - 6 tonne helicopters in the running.

Anyway, the primary tasks for BLUH (if BLUH remains) are recce and direction of fires, in support of AH and ground forces, not lifting and shifting which is a secondary role. You should know this SS, as your chaps (the AAC) decided that this was what they wanted. BLUH was specified as a higher tech Gazelle replacement more than a Lynx utility replacement.

As a final point, and I remember this being made clearly at a roadshow, if the answer for BLUH was a Blackhawk or NH90, then guess what colour uniform would probably end up flying it?..........

(hint, it'd probably be a shade of blue, as the thing would be a support helicopter............)

[SilsoeSid]

According to the MoD....

Without having to do a large cut/paste job again from the MoD website , may I ask what the role of a Mark 9 Lynx is please? and while you're at it, based on your theory, why isn't it being flown by the SH boys?

Anyway, the primary tasks for BLUH (if BLUH remains) are recce and direction of fires, in support of AH and ground forces, not lifting and shifting which is a secondary role.

"In support of......." doesn't that make it a support helicopter, with a secondary role as a.........support helicopter?

Perhaps you are letting your side down a bit, as it seems that you expect it to be the norm for an Army pilot to to fly both SH and do FAC/recces.

I don't want to do a reference to the "Army Pilots are Best" thread, ok I do really, but it would seem that your boys would fly anything in an SH role as long as it was only SH jobs and not in a Lynx.

BLUH was specified as a higher tech Gazelle replacement more than a Lynx utility replacement.

Not heard that one before. So whats wrong with anything that Eurocopter produce, or even MDH?

[VP959]

SS, I'm not being drawn further into the debate about the role of a light recce helo. All will become clear on the way ahead soon enough. I will correct another of your delusions before I depart here again though - I don't wear a pale blue uniform and never have...........

VP

[SilsoeSid]

"Your boys" ......as in the ones you tend to favour now that you have a different career.

And by the way, didn't your uniform ever fade on the flightdeck, with all that sea spray, rum, bum and baccy??



By the way, having read the report about the Antartica Lynx crash, could you let us in on the cause ? Please don't just say, 'not tech'.

Not being drawn any further,

SS